The Position and Tasks of the Socialist International

Published:Sotsial-DemokratNo. 33 November 1, 1914.

      Published according to the text inSotsial-Demokrat, checked against the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[197[4]],

      Moscow,Volume 21,

      pages35-41.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersandR. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Thegravest feature of the present crisis is that the
    majority of official representatives of European socialism have succumbed to
    bourgeois nationalism, to chauvinism. It is with good reason that the
    bourgeois press of all countries writes of them now with derision, now with
    condescending praise. To anyone who wants to remain a socialist there can be
    no more important duty than to reveal the causes of this crisis in socialism
    and analyse the tasks of the International.

Thereare such that are afraid to admit that the crisis or, to put it
    more accurately, the collapse of the Second International is the collapse of
    opportunism.

Referenceis made to the unanimity, for instance, among French
    socialists, and to the fact that the old groups in socialism have supposedly
    changed their stands in the question of the war. Such references, however,
    are groundless.

Advocacyof class collaboration; abandonment of the idea of socialist
    revolution and revolutionary methods of struggle; adaptation to bourgeois
    nationalism; losing sight of the fact that the borderlines of nationality
    and country are historically transient; making a fetish of bourgeois
    legality; renunciation of the class viewpoint and the class struggle, for
    fear of repelling the “broad masses of the population”(meaning
    the petty bourgeoisie)—such, doubtlessly, are the ideological
    foundations of opportunism. And it is from such soil that the present
    chauvinist and patrioticframe of mind of most Second International leaders
    has developed. Observers representing the most various points of view have
    long noted that the opportunists are in fact prevalent in the Second
    International’s leadership. The war has merely brought out, rapidly
    and saliently, the true measure of this prevalence. There is nothing
    surprising in the extraordinary acuteness of the crisis having led to a
    series of reshufflings within the old groups. On the whole, however, such
    changes have affected only individuals. The trends within socialism have
    remained the same.

Completeunanimity does not exist among French socialists. Even Vaillant,
    who, with Guesde, Plekhanov, Hervé and others, is following a
    chauvinist line, has had to admit that he has received a number of letters
    of protest from French socialists, who say that the war is imperialist in
    character and that the French bourgeoisie is to blame for its outbreak no
    less than the bourgeoisie of any other country. Nor should it be overlooked
    that these voices of protest are being smothered, not only by triumphant
    opportunism, but also by the military censorship. With the British, the
    Hyndman group (the British Social-Democrats—the British Socialist
    Party[2])
    has completely sunk into chauvinism, as have also most of the semi-liberal
    leaders of the trade unions. Resistance to chauvinism has come from
    MacDonald and Keir Hardie of the opportunist Independent Labour
Party.[3]This, of
    course, is an exception to the rule. However, certain revolutionary
    Social-Democrats who have long been in opposition to Hyndman have now left
    the British Socialist Party. With the Germans the situation is clear: the
    opportunists have won; they are jubilant, and feel quite in their
    element. Headed by Kautsky, the “Centre” has succumbed to
    opportunism and is defending it with the most hypocritical, vulgar and smug
    sophistry. Protests have come from the revolutionary
    Social-Democrats—Mehring, Pannekoek, Karl Liebknecht, and a number of
    unidentified voices in Germany and German-speaking Switzerland. In Italy,
    the line-up is clear too: the extreme opportunists, Bissolati and Co. stand
    for “fatherland”, for Guesde-Vaillant-Plekhanov-Hervé. The
    revolutionary Social-Democrats (the Socialist Party), withAvanti!at their head, are combating chauvinism and are exposing the bourgeois and
    selfish nature of the calls forwar. They have the support of the vast
    majority of progressive
workers.[4]In Russia, the extreme opportunists of the
    liquidators’
camp[5]have already raised their voices, in public
    lectures and the press, in defence of chauvinism. P. Maslov and Y. Smirnov
    are defending tsarism on the pretext that the fatherland must be
    defended. (Germany, you see, is threatening to impose trade agreements on
    “us” at swordpoint, whereas tsarism, we are expected to believe,
    has not been using the sword, the knout and the gallows to stifle the
    economic, political and national life of nine-tenths of Russia’s
    population!) They justify socialists participating in reactionary bourgeois
    governments, and their approval of war credits today and more armaments
    tomorrow! Plekhanov has slid into nationalism, and is endeavouring to mask
    his Russian chauvinism with a Francophile attitude, and so has Alexinsky. To
    judge from the ParisGolos,[6]Martov is behaving with more
    decency than the rest of this crowd, and has come out in opposition to both
    German and French chauvinism, toVorwärts, Mr. Hyndman and
    Maslov, but is afraid to come out resolutely against international
    opportunism as a whole, and against the German Social-Democratic Centrist
    group, its most “influential” champion. The attempts to present
    volunteer service in the army as performance of a socialist duty (see the
    Paris declaration of a group of Russian volunteers consisting of
    Social-Democrats and Socialist-Revolutionaries, and also a declaration by
    Polish Social-Democrats,  Leder, and others) have had the backing of
    Plekhanov alone. These attempts have been condemned by the majority of our
    Paris Party
group.[7]Theleading article in
    this
issue[1]will inform readers of our Party Central Committee’s
    stand. To preclude any misunderstanding, the following facts relating to the
    history of our Party’s views and their formulation must be stated
    here. After overcoming tremendous difficulties in re-establishing
    organisational contacts broken by the war, a group of Party members first
    drew up “theses” and on September 6-8 (New Style) had them
    circulated among the comrades. Then they were sent to two delegates to the
    Italo-Swiss Conference in Lugano (September 27), through Swiss
    Social-Democrats. It was only inmid-October that it became possible to
      re-establish contacts and formulate the viewpoint of the Party’s
      Central Committee. The leading article in this issue represents the final
      wording of the “theses”.

Such,briefly, is the present state of affairs in the European and the
    Russian Social-Democratic movement. The collapse of the International is a
    fact. It has been proved conclusively by the polemic, in the press, between
    the French and German socialists, and acknowledged, not only by the Left
    Social-Democrats (MehringandBremer Bürger Zeitung), but by moderate Swiss papers
    (Volksrecht). Kautsky’s attempts to cover up this collapse
    are a cowardly subterfuge. The collapse of the International is clearly the
    collapse of opportunism, which is now captive to the bourgeoisie.

Thebourgeoisie’s stand is clear. It is no less clear that the
    opportunists are simply echoing bourgeois arguments. In addition to what has
    been said in the leading article, we need only mention the insulting
    statements inDie Neue Zeit, suggesting that internationalism
    consists in the workers of one country shooting down the workers of another
    country, allegedly in defence of the fatherland!

Thequestion of the fatherland—we shall reply to the
    opportunists—cannot be posed without due consideration of the concrete
    historical nature of the present war. This is an imperialist war, i.e., it
    is being waged at a time of the highest development of capitalism, a time of
    its approaching end. The working class must first “constitute itself
    within the nation”, theCommunist Manifestodeclares, emphasising the limits and conditions
    of our recognition of nationality and fatherland as essential forms of the
    bourgeois system, and, consequently, of the bourgeois fatherland. The
    opportunists distort that truth by extending to the period of the end of
    capitalism that which was true of the period of its rise. With reference to
    the former period and to the tasks of the proletariat in its struggle to
    destroy, not feudalism but capitalism, theCommunist Manifestogives a clear and precise formula: “The
    workingmen have no country.” One can well understand why the
    opportunists are so afraid to accept this socialist proposition, afraid
    even, in most cases, openly to reckon with it. The socialist movement cannot
    triumph within the old framework of the fatherland. It creates newand
    superior forms of human society, in which the legitimate needs and
    progressive aspirations of the working masses ofeachnationality
    will, for the first time, be met through international unity, provided
    existing national partitions are removed. To the present-day
    bourgeoisie’s attempts to divide and disunite them by means of
    hypocritical appeals for the “defence of the fatherland” the
    class-conscious workers will reply with ever new and persevering efforts to
    unite the workers of various nations in the struggle to overthrow the rule
    of the bourgeoisie of all nations.

Thebourgeoisie is duping the masses by disguising imperialist rapine
    with the old ideology of a “national war”. This deceit is being
    shown up by the proletariat, which has brought forward its slogan of turning
    the imperialist war into a civil war. This was the slogan of the Stuttgart
    and Basle resolutions, which had in mind, not war in general, but precisely
    the present war and spoke, not of “defence of the fatherland”,
    but of “hastening the downfall of capitalism”, of utilising the
    war-created crisis for this purpose, and of the example provided by the
    Paris Commune. The latter was an instance of a war of nations being turned
    into a civil war.

Ofcourse, such a conversion is no easy matter and cannot be accomplished
    at the whim of one party or another. That conversion, however, is inherent
    in the objective conditions of capitalism in general, and of the period of
    the end of capitalism in particular. It is in that direction, and that
    direction alone, that socialists must conduct their activities. It is not
    their business to vote for war credits or to encourage chauvinism in their
    “own” country (and allied countries), but primarily to strive
    against the chauvinism of their “own” bourgeoisie, without
    confining themselves to legal forms of struggle when the crisis has matured
    and the bourgeoisie has itself taken away the legality it has created. Such
    is the line of action thatleadsto civil war, and will bring about
    civil war at one moment or another of the European conflagration.

Waris no chance happening, no “sin” as is thought by
    Christian priests (who are no whit behind the opportunists in preaching
    patriotism, humanity and peace), but an inevitable stage of capitalism, just
    as legitimate a form of thecapitalistway of life as peace
    is. Present-day war is a people’s war. What follows from this truth is
    not that we must swim with the “popular” current of chauvinism,
    but that the class contradictions dividing the nations continue to exist in
    wartime and manifest themselves in conditions of war. Refusal to serve with
    the forces, anti-war strikes, etc., are sheer nonsense, the miserable and
    cowardly dream of an unarmed struggle against the armed bourgeoisie, vain
    yearning for the destruction of capitalism without a desperate civil war or
    a series of wars. It is the duty of every socialist to conduct propaganda of
    the class struggle, in the army as well; work directed towards turning a war
    of the nations into civil war is the only socialist activity in the era of
    an imperialist armed conflict of the bourgeoisie of all nations. Down with
    mawkishly sanctimonious and fatuous appeals for “peace at any price"!
    Let us raise high the banner of civil war! Imperialism sets at hazard the
    fate of European culture: this war will soon be followed by others, unless
    there are a series of successful revolutions. The story about this being the
    “last war” is a hollow and dangerous fabrication, a piece of
    philistine “mythology”(asGolosaptly puts it). The
    proletarian banner of civil war will rally together, not only hundreds of
    thousands of class-conscious workers but millions of semi-proletarians and
    petty bourgeois, now deceived by chauvinism, but whom the horrors of war
    will not only intimidate and depress, but also enlighten, teach, arouse,
    organise, steel and prepare for the war against the bourgeoisie of their
    “own” country and “foreign” countries. And this will
    take place, if not today, then tomorrow, if not during the war, then after
    it, if not in this war then in the next one.

TheSecond International is dead, overcome by opportunism. Down with
    opportunism, and long live the Third International, purged not only of
    “turncoats”(asGoloswishes), but of opportunism as
    well.

TheSecond International did its share of useful preparatory work in
    preliminarily organising the proletarian masses during the long,
    “peaceful” period of the most brutal capitalist slavery and most
    rapid capitalist progress in the last third of the nineteenth and the
    beginning of the twentieth centuries. To the Third International falls the
    taskof organising the proletarian forces for a revolutionary onslaught
    against the capitalist governments, for civil war against the bourgeoisie of
    all countries for the capture of political power, for the triumph of
    socialism!

[1]Seepp. 25–34 of this volume.—Ed.

[2]TheBritish
    Socialist Party was founded in 1911, in Manchester, as a result of the
    Social-Democratic Federation merging with other socialist groups. The
    B.S.P. carried on its propaganda in the Marxist spirit, was “not
    opportunist, and . . . wasreallyindependent of the
    Liberals” (see present edition, Vol. 19, p. 273  Its small membership,
    however, and its isolation from the masses gave it a somewhat sectarian
    character.

Duringthe First World War, a sharp struggle flared up in
    the party between the internationalist trend (William Gallacher, Albert
    Inkpin, John Maclean, Thomas Rothstein and others) and the social-chauvinist
    trend led by Hyndman. On a number ofquestions a section of the
    internationalists held Centrist views. In February 1916 a group of party
    members founded the newspaperThe Call, which was instrumental in
    uniting the internationalist elements. When, at its Salford conference in
    April 1916, the Party denounced the social-chauvinist stand held by Hyndman
    and his followers, the latter broke away from the Party.

TheBritish Socialist Party acclaimed the October
    Socialist Revolution in Russia, its members playing a prominent role in the
    British working people’s movement in support of Soviet Russia, and
    against the foreign intervention. In 1919 the majority of the local Party
    branches (98 against 4) declared for affiliation to the Communist
    International.

TheBritish Socialist Party and the Communist unity group
    played the leading part in founding the Communist Party of Great Britain. At
    the first Unity Congress of 1920 the overwhelming majority of the
    B.S.P. branches merged in the newly founded Communist Party.

[3]TheIndependent Labour Partya reformist party founded by the leaders of
    “new trade unions” in 1893, when the strike struggle revived and
    there was a mounting drive for a labour movement independent of the
    bourgeois parties. The Party included members of the “new trade
    unions” and a number of the old trade unions, representatives of the
    professions and the petty bourgeoisie, who were under Fabian influence. The
    Party’s leader was James Keir Hardie.

Fromits early days the Independent Labour Party held a
    bourgeois-reformist stand, concentrating on the parliamentary forms of
    struggle and parliamentary deals with the Liberals. Characterising this
    party, Lenin wrote that it was “actually an opportunist party that has
    always been dependent on the bourgeoisie” (V. I. Lenin,On
    Britain, Moscow, p. 401).

Whenthe First World War broke out, the Party issued an
    anti-war manifesto, but shortly afterwards took a social-chauvinist
    stand.

[4]SeeNote 20inPosition and Tasks of
      the Socialist International.

[5]Forliquidators seepp. 333-34of this
    volume.

[6]Golos(The Voice)—a daily Menshevik paper, published
    in Paris from September 1914 to January 1915, which followed a Centrist
    line.

Inthe early days of the war of 1914-18Golospublished several of Martov’s articles directed against
    social-chauvinists. After Martov’s swing to the Right, the newspaper
    came out in defence of the social-chauvinists, preferring “unity with
    the social-chauvinists to drawing closer to those who are irreconcilably
    hostile to social chauvinism” (p. 113 in this volume)

InJanuary 1915Golosceased publication and
    was replaced byNashe Slovo(Our Word).

[7]TheParis groupor group for aid the R.S.D.L.P. was formed on November 5
    (18), 1908. It separated from the common Menshevik and Bolshevik Paris
    group, to unite Bolsheviks alone. It was later joined by pro-Party
    Mensheviks andVperyodsupporters.

Duringthe war the group consisted of N. A. Semashko,
    M. F. Vladimirsky, I. F. Armand, S. I. Gopner, L. N. Stal, V. K. Taratula,
    A. S. Shapovalov and others. Led by Lenin, the group took an
    internationalist stand and waged a vigorous struggle against the imperialist
    war and the opportunists.